invariably flow directly from the Defendant's conduct. Conversion was originally known as trover and is of much later origin than either trespass or detinue [see Fleming, Law of Torts, 7th ed. (1987) p. 50]. Conversion does not protect the ownership of chattels, but regulates rights of possession of chattels. The essence of conversion is not a wrong against the owner in respect of its ownership. It is an infringement of the right of control or the right of possession which is usually an incident of ownership but not always. An owner of goods who has given up possession and the right to possession of goods for a term ordinarily lacks the interest to sue in conversion during that period of time. A "conversion" is the positive and intentional interference with legal possession
99 or the right to immediate possession. Mistake as to the legal or factual consequences of one's conduct is not a defence if the physical consequences were intended. There have been several cases where well-intentioned defendants were held liable in conversion because their conduct resulted in a denial of the possessory rights of others. Can Laboratory supplies Ltd vs. Engelhard Industries of Can. Ltd (1979) 97 D.L.R. (3d) 1 (SCC); 384238 Ont. Ltd v. Can (1983) 8 DLR (4th) 676 (Fed. CA) ; Hollins V. Fowler (1875) LR 7 HL 757; Lancashire & Yorkshire Ry V. MacNicoll (1918) 88 LJKB 610; Marfani & Co v. Midland Bank Ltd [1968] 1 WLR 956 (CA). In order to be actionable, a conversion must result from a positive act of (p. 67) of the defendant which denies or seriously interferes with the claimant's
